Creation--contradiction?

[future expatriate]

First, let me apoligize if I am starting a thread that has already been discussed (I realize that the topic that I bring has, no doubt, been discussed to death in some circles). I know that many newbies come onto message boards and introduce for discussion topics that are well-discussed cans-o-worms, and I am going to apologize in advance if I am committing this faux pas.

Now, on to the topic:

When we read Genesis 1, we see God creating man on the sixth day, after the animals.

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."


27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Then, in Genesis 2, we see man seemingly created before the rest of the creatures.

19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

(Click here for the larger context.)

How do we reconcile or approach these seeming contradictions without acquiescing to the foul beast(s) of higher or textual criticism?

[Edited on 5-2-2005 by future expatriate]

[Edited on 5-2-2005 by future expatriate]

 

[Larry Hughes]

v.19 is not a time line accounting but a re-statement of fact. Genesis 1 sets forth the order. Genesis 2 is a summary of what went before mainly emphasizing man's naming of the animals. In other words he's just restating the creation of the animals from the ground as a fact and later setting them before Adam to be named.

No contradiction.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

That's too wooden a reading of the second passage. The first chapter of Genesis explains how God fashioned the cosmos. It's a stand alone narrative. The next chapter, actually at verse 4, begins the first of 10 subsequent narrations, each one beginning with the phrase, "These are the generations." They each presume on what has gone before. Collectively they keep narrowing down the story of humanity and even one family to get down to the 12 sons of Israel--the family that starts the covenant nation from which the Messiah shall come. You aren't presented with a "new" creation account in Gen 2. Gen 2 can't stand alone. Too many unanswered questions would arise. Gen 2 assumes Gen 1.

In ch. 2 you are presented with the history of Man. You can't understand verse 19 without verse 18. Jehovah is explaining himself there. Adam shouldn't be alone, so God will create a helper. The following sentence "and out of the ground Jehovah formed every beast of the field," does not even demand a temporal, consecutive understanding, especially in the light of what was already presented in ch. 1. It is a statement of fact, no more. All these animals that God created he brought to Adam to name, and also to teach him--that he was alone. The creation of man was not "finished" yet.

Helpful?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am not there yet, but volume 2 of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, God and Creation deals with some seeming tension in the narratives, all while remaining faithful. I will add my thoughts as they are conditioned by my readings.

[Edited on 2--5-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[future expatriate]

One alternative to how I was reading the passage that I came up with was that God's statement in verse eighteen was made before human creation, incorperating his wisdom, foreknowlege, etc.

I readily admit that I'm not very good at hermeneutics.

 

[cornelius vantil]

it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

"foul beast(s) of higher or textual criticism"

i just want to point out what appears to be a confusion.
there are two things:
lower criticism or textual criticism
higher criticism or source criticism or literary criticism

textual criticism can be and often is fully orthodox in its assumptions and hermeneutical principles. the enemy of orthodoxy is higher/source/literary criticism not textual.

....

 

[New wine skin]

Originally posted by cornelius vantil
genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being

what is scientific ??? presuppositions here come : ) the problem with scientific method is it is not scientific. It is incoherant because it rejects the metaphysical. That is to say, its a self refuting absolute when it says any thing to be scientific must be observable and verifiable else its not scientific. Well this statement is not scientitific therefore it is false by this absolute. I dont want to start a new thread but just want to shut down the "scientific" argument used against Gen 1

 

[New wine skin]

to put context in my comment I am rejecting the excuse that "Gen 1 is not meant to be scientific therefore..... " I see this type of thinking as an intellectual pacifer from liberals for the sake of unity with our "friends" who support evolutionary ideology.

 

[New wine skin]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
That's too wooden a reading of the second passage. The first chapter of Genesis explains how God fashioned the cosmos. It's a stand alone narrative. The next chapter, actually at verse 4, begins the first of 10 subsequent narrations, each one beginning with the phrase, "These are the generations." They each presume on what has gone before. Collectively they keep narrowing down the story of humanity and even one family to get down to the 12 sons of Israel--the family that starts the covenant nation from which the Messiah shall come. You aren't presented with a "new" creation account in Gen 2. Gen 2 can't stand alone. Too many unanswered questions would arise. Gen 2 assumes Gen 1.

In ch. 2 you are presented with the history of Man. You can't understand verse 19 without verse 18. Jehovah is explaining himself there. Adam shouldn't be alone, so God will create a helper. The following sentence "and out of the ground Jehovah formed every beast of the field," does not even demand a temporal, consecutive understanding, especially in the light of what was already presented in ch. 1. It is a statement of fact, no more. All these animals that God created he brought to Adam to name, and also to teach him--that he was alone. The creation of man was not "finished" yet.

Helpful?

Well said!

 

[cornelius vantil]

gen2 assumes gen 1?? i do not agree....gen 1 says vegatation was created on the third day, animals were created on the 6th day finaly was man and woman. gen2 says there was no vegatation b/c there was no rain and no man, then a "mist" is formed, then man is made, the garden formed, animals were created, Adam names the animals finally woman is made. when the 2 accounts are compared side by side they are not the same! we have to come to grips with that.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by cornelius vantil
gen2 assumes gen 1?? i do not agree....gen 1 says vegatation was created on the third day, animals were created on the 6th day finaly was man and woman. gen2 says there was no vegatation b/c there was no rain and no man, then a "mist" is formed, then man is made, the garden formed, animals were created, Adam names the animals finally woman is made. when the 2 accounts are compared side by side they are not the same! we have to come to grips with that.

You are assuming that the traditional view interprets the Gen 2 narrative in the strict chronoligical sense as gen 1, which traditionall adherents do not do. We've covered this on the last thread. The gen. 2 narrative is not strictly chronological. The gen.1 narrative clearly is. Even holding to the FH view you must acknowledge that obvious distinction in the narratives.

 

[cornelius vantil]

clearly gen.2 is not cronoligical???????
God makes man
then plants a garden
then puts man in the garden
then god creates animals and brings them to man to name (i thought the animals were made first?)
then after naming the animals woman is made (all this happened in 24 solar hours)

patrick, gen is account that stands on its own. exegetically the events are presented in chronological fasion. only by approaching the text with a preconcieved bias (ie literal reading of gen1) would one come to the conclusion that gen2. is not chronolgical. taken on its own it is what it is a different account of creation than gen1.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by cornelius vantil
clearly gen.2 is not cronoligical???????
God makes man
then plants a garden
then puts man in the garden
then god creates animals and brings them to man to name (i thought the animals were made first?)
then after naming the animals woman is made (all this happened in 24 solar hours)

patrick, gen is account that stands on its own. exegetically the events are presented in chronological fasion. only by approaching the text with a preconcieved bias (ie literal reading of gen1) would one come to the conclusion that gen2. is not chronolgical. taken on its own it is what it is a different account of creation than gen1.

I said it was not strictly chronological like Gen. 1. The intention of the narrative is different than that of Gen 1 which is unquestionably a chronological narrative and not poetry. So I don't understand where you get the "literay framework" from. Could it be from your preconcieved bias? It certainly doesn't come from a natural reading of the text.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by cornelius vantil
it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being

I find this a rather interesting comment when it is Kline who developed his FH scheme attempting to provide an interpretation to reconcile the Geneisi narratives with old earth "scientific" views.

47 In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. But while I regard the widespread insistence on a young earth to be a deplorable disservice to the cause of biblical truth, I at the same time deem commitment to the authority of scriptural teaching to involve the acceptance of Adam as an historical individual, the covenantal head and ancestral fount of the rest of mankind, and the recognition that it was the one and same divine act that constituted him the first man, Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38), that also imparted to him life (Gen. 2:7).
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF3-96Kline.html

Of course we could push this "literary framework" to it's logical conclusion. If we can't accept the natural reading of "day" then why accept the natural reading of male, female, beasts, birds, trees, etc. Or how about "and God said"? Should that just be understood as part of teh literary framework? Could that also be just a literary device to convey something else, perhaps a poetic way of describing the stages of evolution which culminated in present day man?

This is the problem when you compromise with modern science.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

(and up from the dead
comes a 4 month old thread...)

Since chapter 2 exists in our Scriptures after chapter 1, I don't understand how you can say that the substance does not presume the reader has already read and familiarized himself with the contents of chapter 1. Other than the form-critic, who abstracts and atomizes the biblical text? How many of the stories on your shelf do you ordinarily start reading in chapter 2? Or begin on the Xth page of text after the first?

I suppose you could call that the "canonical argument restated," but of course as a scholar with an orthodox mindset, there's more to it than that. Because this is both Moses' account, and the Spirit inspired account. So, if you take the second account and begin dealing with it as if it stands alone, in an abstract or hypothetical first-position, you are running against the very grain of the Scripture. Scripture itself assumes you have read and digested the Gen 1 account.

As to "coming to grips" with the text and its variations relative to the Gen 1 account, it never ceases to amaze me that this argument is trotted out as often as it is--as if the issues were never noticed (!) until about a century ago. In all the years since "framework" burst on the evangelical scene I have not seen one exegetical refutation of the traditional exegetical position. Not one attempt to destabilize the traditional work of harmonization.

No. Not Futato. Not Kline. Not Irons. Nobody. The old hermeneutic has not been tried and found wanting; it has simply been dismissed. Dismissed as insufficient to meet the challenges of extra-biblical mockery. The greatest single oddity about the modern take on Genesis 1 is that the rankest unbelievers and the staunchest conservatives occupy the same ground when it comes to interpretation. What did Moses mean? The unbelievers just say, "we agree that's what he wrote; we just don't happen to believe a word of it--its all mythology," while the believers tout its plain veracity.

Meanwhile, the framework view occupies the twilight of middle-ground shadows: a strange place where day-age views cross paths with theistic evolution, where half-formed theories designed to correlate biblical data with since-rejected naturalistic hypotheses limp past muttering, where C.I. Scofield's ghost walks by arm-in-arm with H.P. Lovecraft. You get the idea.

I'm not going to post a thesis on the interpretation of Gen 1 & 2. It's been done, and much better than mine beside. If there are specific questions dealing with particular matters of harmonization, I will attempt (along with others) to address them. But to claim that these matters have never been adequately faced in centuries of traditional Reformed exegesis is simply to state out loud, "I have not done much reading in this area."

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Here is Dr. Pipa's critique of FH in case anyone is interested.

http://www.capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm

 

[cornelius vantil]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Of course we could push this "literary framework" to it's logical conclusion. If we can't accept the natural reading of "day" then why accept the natural reading of male, female, beasts, birds, trees, etc. Or how about "and God said"? Should that just be understood as part of the literary framework? Could that also be just a literary device to convey something else, perhaps a poetic way of describing the stages of evolution which culminated in present day man?

This is the problem when you compromise with modern science.

so if "day" means 24 hours does that mean that gen 2 teach that the heavens and the earth where created in 24 hours?

"this is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" gen2:4 NKJV

hmmm gen1 says that creation six days, gen2 says 1 day if "day"=24 solar hours we have a problem here. well i guess the catholic church was right for condemning galieo for saying that the sun does not rotate around the earth when the "bible says" that it the sun that rises and sets? i am sure that the christians of that time used the "we should not comprimise with modern science" montra as well

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Since chapter 2 exists in our Scriptures after chapter 1, I don't understand how you can say that the substance does not presume the reader has already read and familiarized himself with the contents of chapter 1. Other than the form-critic, who abstracts and atomizes the biblical text? How many of the stories on your shelf do you ordinarily start reading in chapter 2? Or begin on the Xth page of text after the first?

I suppose you could call that the "canonical argument restated," but of course as a scholar with an orthodox mindset, there's more to it than that. Because this is both Moses' account, and the Spirit inspired account. So, if you take the second account and begin dealing with it as if it stands alone, in an abstract or hypothetical first-position, you are running against the very grain of the Scripture. Scripture itself assumes you have read and digested the Gen 1 account.

you are assuming that for one to be "orthodox" one must assume mosiac authorship of genesis, which i do not. that is a whole other issue itslef that if you like to talk about we can go start another thread. but lets start with the assumption that moses wrote genesis, were did he get the material that comprised it? was it directly from divine revelation? if that is the case how did the jews know about the promises God made to the patriarchs or the story of creation or the flood? are you suggesting that it was not until moses penned gensis that the jews had no understanding of who they were? now if you says these stories where preserved orally before moses than what we have is moses compiling a series of stoies and putting them together in form that we presently have in the book of genesis. if this is the case (which i think it is but would put the compiling much later) then gen1 and gen2 can be understood as 2 seperate accounts of creation that was compiled together by moses. the issues are a whole lot more complicated than just assume gen2 follows gen1.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

so if "day" means 24 hours does that mean that gen 2 teach that the heavens and the earth where created in 24 hours?

"this is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" gen2:4 NKJV

So, your argument is that because in this instance, the word "yom" apparently does not mean an ordinary day, then it does not mean it in the previous several instances. This is an informal fallacy--arguing from a particular instance to a general conclusion; as well as ignoring the exegesis of the ordinary-day position. The exegesis isn't even touched! The position is merely dismissed as I already mentioned, and on what basis? A logical blunder.

Note the throughout usage of the OT regarding "days" used with ordinal numbers. That involves the exegesis just of that word: "yom" (not even touching on any of dozens of other points). Not just Gen. 1. Not just Gen. Not just Moses. The whole OT. It's simply ridiculous to claim that a general use of "day" in a single instance, in a new and subsequent section of the text--a usage that no one finds controversial with respect to its meaning, somehow in the last 150 years has come to "contradict" the previous narrative.

well i guess the catholic church was right for condemning galieo for saying that the sun does not rotate around the earth when the "bible says" that it the sun that rises and sets?

Wrong. And its patronizing, too, to lump in your debaters here with 17th century (A.D. 1615) RCC apologists. At least have the courtesy to quote a Reformation source against us. 1) Why should we be tarred with the same brush as a bunch of allegorizing, careless exegetes, who were more concerned with preserving papal authority and it's enshrinement of one brand of Greek philosophico-theological synthesis over others? 2) This same Galileo swore on a stack of Bibles that the sun (as opposed to the earth) was the motionless center of the "celestial orbs." This he did because other theories were repugnant to him. They went against his reason. What would he say to the scientists of today who put all "celestial orb theories" in the same category as flat-earth? The point being that Galileo was just as insistent about a flawed point of his astronomy as he was about a correct one--not because the Bible said so, but because "science" said so! 3) Overthrowing the exegesis of the papists was a light task anyway, given that a) poetic expression from the Psalms was the cornerstone of the papal theologian's arguments, and b) it is another small thing to recognize perspective-orientation; after all, we do it ourselves, and think nothing of it--we aren't self-contradictory, so why should we assume that the Biblical writers were? 4) Evidence interpretation is a matter of philosophy, not a product of a "scientific worldview". So, "young-earthers" discount evidence brought forward by "old-earthers" and "old-earthers" discount the evidence brought forward by "young-earthers," each subordinating the other's evidence to their own, or reinterpreting it. Why should YOU assume you have the "privileged position" of the moral-evidentiary high ground?

Your comment wasn't an argument anyway, just ad hominem abuse, so it really didn't deserve a paragraph response, but there you go...

And in response to your last paragraph, 1) Yea, I guess I would have to agree that rejecting Mosaic authorship of the full Pentateuch (with the exception of a handful of verses) would be the "unorthodox" position on that point by definition. You might not like that, but if the history of interpretation is going to be our guide for determining "orthodoxy" (and not just "feelings"), along with the predominant historic view of theologians and laity alike (including the Jewish tradition), then yes, MY view is the orthodox one. 2) You are proposing a false dilemma. I am not at all leery of affirming that Moses had written and oral revelation to draw from, in addition to being the recipient of direct revelation. It makes no difference to my interpretation to affirm that the people of God have always been in possession of the "oracles of God" in some form starting with Adam, and also "regular" history that had no particular "preservation" attached or promised to it. The internal testimony of Scripture says that Moses preserved as Scripture specifically what God wanted him to. This position does not commit me to accepting two-fold, or two-tiered creation accounts. 3) I would argue that it is a two-dimentional view of "compiling" such as you suggest that is the "simplistic" approach to the crafting of the Genesis story. The book is far from a "stacking" of pre-existing materials. 4) The two-account theory stands or falls on the claim of irreconcilability. We are still waiting for a demonstration of the exegetical failures of the "old orthodoxy."


For others reading this thread, I would second Patrick's recommendation above that you read the demonstration of the exegetical failures of the "framework" view, note Dr. Pipa's thesis hyperlinked above. I encourage you to read the framework material. I am not the least afraid of it's becoming popular, provided there is free access to information, and the "well isn't poisoned." Also, please read the traditional defenses. And the "fittest" exegesis will survive and thrive, I'm sure.

 

[cornelius vantil]

the point that i was tring to make that there is a similarity between the line of argumentation between men who criticizes a non-literal view of the creation of those of galieo's time....yes there might have been a little bit fustration in my post (it gets a little old hearing that non-literal readings of creation is somehow compromising with evoltionary science) and as far as exegesis is conserned no one has offered an explanation on how gen2 is not chronological. i have heard assertions on this post but not any evidence to engage with.

i am not going to comment on mosiac authorship simply b/c to discuss it will invovle a whole other thread and i would like to continue discussing creation issues.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Prefaced Remarks:
It is evident that part of our problem is communicative. A number of assumptions have been made by both sides in this debate. It seems clear that Mr Hernandez is not arguing for a typical evangelical "framework" view, at least not that as offered by its leading Reformed proponents (Kline, Futato, Irons, et al.). This should have been obvious to us from the outset. And anyway, we should have asked. I apologize. (Mr Williams, at least, seems to have seen this better than either Patrick or myself.) There are a couple of clues in the exchanges that seem to indicate MrHernandez is more of a strict source-theory advocate. Of course this labeling is also of limited value, as Mr Hernandez may not subscribe wholeheartedly to the views of that "school", nor define himself in those terms. While assuming is wrong, sometimes guesswork (with appropriate charity) is both desireable and necessary, because our thoughts are not atomized but connected. In debate, I recognize that a total assault involves not merely confronting presentations, but also undermining foundations.

On to the matter:
Patrick above pointed out that traditional exegesis recognizes both non-chronological elements as well as chronological elements in the Genesis 2 account. His comment "You are assuming that the traditional view interprets the Gen 2 narrative in the strict chronoligical sense as gen 1," was misinterpreted as a claim that Gen 2 is not chronological. This misinterpretation he attempted to correct in a following post. Thus, when Mr Hernandez asks for "proof" that Gen 2 is not chronological he seems to be asking for something that the other side does not subscribe to.

The "framework" advocates DO believe that Gen 2 is not chronological, and on the basis of that view claim that Gen 1 is not either. Here I quote 2 excerpts from Dr. Pipa's critique:

His [Dr. Futato's] conclusion is that, although Moses uses the form of sequential narrative, he intends for us to think topically and not sequentially. In effect he says, that the grammatical form, though normally used in sequential narrative, may be used in a topical account.7 ....

On the basis of this division, he argues for the topical arrangement of chapter 2 and suggests that chapter 2 enables us to understand the structure of chapter 1: "Granted... the topical nature of Gen 2:4-25, we should not be surprised by the suggestion that the coherent reading of Gen 1:1-2:3 (that is, the reading that coheres internally as well as externally with Gen 2:4-25) is topical rather than chronological."8

But as Dr. Pipa rejoinds, this is not to be accepted:

It seems to me that Dr. Futato's analysis does not give sufficient consideration to Moses' style of writing history or the special structure he uses in Genesis 2:4. Admittedly, Moses arranges a portion of chapter two topically, but the second half of the chapter is chronological narrative. Furthermore, even if Moses arranges his material topically, we still would have no grounds to interpret the first chapter in light of the second. Iain Duguid comments:

'If Genesis 2 is non-chronological, then Genesis 1 is non-chronological' is faulty. On the same basis, one might argue that because John's gospel is non-chronological, Mark's gospel must be equally non-chronological. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to find a topical account building on a more chronological one.... To my mind, the nature of Genesis 2 does not prejudge the issue of Genesis 1 at all.9

Dr. Futato's analysis of Genesis 2:15-25 seems to be contrary to the force of the grammar. Hebrew grammars consistently point out that waw consecutive (used throughout this section and in chapter 1) is a singular mark of sequential narrative.10 Jouon says, "This form is very common in narratives. Usually a narrative begins with a qatal (historic perfect) and continues with a wayyiqtol (waw consecutive), which is followed, if need be, by other wayyiqtols,..."11 In Dr. Futato's analysis of chapter 2, he does not offer corroborative examples for interpreting a passage like Genesis 2:15-25, that has the grammatical mark of sequence, as topical. It would be helpful for Dr. Futato to give examples of passages with a series of waw consecutives that are topical.

Does this leave us, however, with a conflict between Genesis 2:19 and Genesis 1? No. Within the context of sequential narrative, the waw consecutive may be used to indicate a time previous to the time of the main narrative. Although its principle use is as an indicator of sequence, it may have the effect of recapitulation or the equivalent of a pluperfect in English. Jouon points out that, because of its frequent use in narrative, at times it loses its idea of sequence and may express simultaneous acts (Jer.22:15; Ruth 2:3) or logically anterior circumstances (Judges 16:23; 1 Sam.18:11).12

In Genesis 2:19, it communicates the idea of logically anterior circumstances. Waltke and O'Connor list pluperfect as a subvariety of epexegetical use. After interacting with Driver, they say, "Moreover, wayyqtl in the received text, the object of our grammatical investigation, must be understood to represent the pluperfect."13 They offer two examples of this usage from the Pentateuch (Num.1:47-49; Exod.4:11-12,18). Moses, in fact, uses the waw consecutive for logically anterior acts or as a pluperfect throughout Pentateuchal narrative. For example, in Exodus 11:1 Moses inserts a waw consecutive as a pluperfect into a sequential narrative in order to introduce a revelation previously given to Moses: "Now the Lord said to Moses, 'One more plague I will bring on Pharaoh and on Egypt...'" This section begins with the waw consecutive, but Moses introduces it in the middle of his last interview with Pharaoh (Exodus 10:24-11:8). As such 11:1-3 serves as a backdrop, a flashback so-to-speak, for his message to Pharaoh. The NIV translates Exodus 11:1 in the same way as it does Gen.2:19, "Now the Lord had said to Moses,..." For the sake of emphasis, Moses would use the waw consecutive as a pluperfect and then resume the chronological sequence of his narrative.

With respect Genesis 2:19 the context of chapter 1 describing man's creation after the animals suggests Moses uses the waw consecutive either as a pluperfect or a logically anterior circumstance. Leupold comments, "That in reality they (the animals) had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation.... It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: 'He had molded.'"14 In order to emphasize that man would find no suitable companion among the animals, Moses uses this grammatical form.15 Thus, we have no conflict with chapter 1 in Genesis 2:19. Nor do we find any compelling evidence to take the second half of Genesis two as topical rather than as a sequential narrative that uses a pluperfect.

The point of this extended quotation does serve to answer Mr Hernandez, if by his complaint:

how gen2 is not chronological. i have heard assertions on this post but not any evidence to engage with.

he simply wants a traditional exegesis response to why a portion of Gen 2 may be taken as recapitulative or topical, in other words non-chronological. I would further state, harking back to my previous arguments, that the subject of authorship is directly relevant to the issue. Because once Mr Hernandez has disputed Moses as the single author--once he has allowed an extensive, pre- and post-Exodus, post conquest existence and use of "inspired but conflicting" material--why should he be persuaded by the "order argument" that I raised previously? The argument that the Gen 2 follows Gen 1, and should be read as though dependent in thought upon it? He has sidestepped that whole argument. Exegetical arguments that intertwine the two can be dismissed (as opposed to argued with and interacted against) because the two are fundamentally distinct. I'm not saying that Mr Hernandez is not going to deal with the material presented above, just that he has already dismissed one very cogent argument based on the text as we have it, on the basis of a disagreement about the origins of that text. In other words, the arguments are only cogent provided that we share fundamental attitudes about the nature of the text we are dealing with.

We don't have to discuss this issue further in this thread. For others, simply note that this form of argument is very similar to, though not necessarily in the same category as, that which pits traditional exegesis against the "Jehovist" and "Elohist" categories (add "Priestly" and "Deutero" for the whole JEPD theory). The form-critic waves his hand and dismisses exegesis that intertwines Scripture that he claims represents two seperate and distinctive strands of religious thought, that have inherent contradictions according to his view. According to that view, fundamental misunderstandings of the "nature of the material you are dealing with" leads you to conclusions that cannot withstand rational (in his view) analysis.

 

[Robin]

This is why I hold to the "Framework" model....the Genesis literature is not chronicalizing (sp?) the creation account per se'....it is asserting the creative power of God. Hence, the recapitulation in the narrative.

(I'm not looking for a fight, about this...but there is ample explanation in Futato, Longman, Kline, et al. Not to mention allowing the whole of the Text to speak for Itself.)



r.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Robin]

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by cornelius vantil
it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being

I guess I can infer that you are Kline adherent? I think the Framework hypothesis is awful on a number of linguistic fronts and comes dangerously close to denying the Biblical account, in my opinion.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Kevin,
I think you are mistaken (as I was) on Mr Hernandez' epsoused position. The only clear advocate for "framework" (so far) is Robin.

Robin,
You're a dear brother. But In my humble opinion, Framework's attempt to "elevate" the debate, and so sidestep the hermeneutical issue (which will not go away), frankly enfeebles the church. What if we used the same tactic to dodge fights over justification? Or imputation? Or the Resurrection?

"Well folks, we have 4 "accounts" of the resurrection of Jesus. If we take just one of them as "normative" or "chronological" then clearly we have irreconcilable conflicts. So, since at least ONE of them must plainly be understood as containing more theology than history, its clear that the total message of "Resurrection" is not HOW it happened, but THAT it happened. Resurrection is theology, not history. The important thing is that the disciples understood that whatever Jesus meant by the "resurrection" he promised, they were convinced that he had accomplished it. And so are we! We'll let the "fundamentalists" fight with the liberals over the swamp of "bodily resurrections" of Christ or anybody else. They are all wrong. We're above that. Our purpose is to stand on the mountaintops of the "theology of Resurrection," and plant our flag. We oppose everyone who denies Resurrection! We are Pro-Resurrection!"

If you oppose that kind of thinking, interpreting, and theology with respect to the resurrection (and I should think that you would!), how do you combat it? Give me a biblical-theological rule, a justification for applying that approach when it comes to Genesis 1 & 2, but noplace else. What reliable technique governs the application of this rule? What about Gen. 3? Was there a Serpent, a talking snake that deceived a real woman named Eve? Were the trees tangible objects? How about their fruit? Could it be chewed and swallowed? (If I had already given up Gen 1 & 2 as history, Chapter 3 would already be looking mighty long-in-the-tooth right now as well--falling like dominoes.) Which chapter or verse division marks "real" history from then on? How do you tell the previous section, with all the "marks of narrative" from the subsequent section that has all the same marks?

These are not just rhetorical questions. I think Framework advocates owe the theological world a defense of the whole hermeneutic. Pipa's article demonstrates the weakness of Framework from the standpoint of the historical-grammatical school (read Reformation school) of hermeneutics. Framework advocates deny the validity of the criticisms by claiming they do not apply. And that is where they leave it. Again, I'll say it: JUSTIFY setting aside the old rules, the old hermeneutic.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by cornelius vantil
it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being

I guess I can infer that you are Kline adherent? I think the Framework hypothesis is awful on a number of linguistic fronts and comes dangerously close to denying the Biblical account, in my opinion.

Maybe it's another thread??? But I'd have to counter the assertion...Horton, Riddlebarger, and quite a few more hold to Framework....I don't know what folks think it is, but I don't see it marginalizing the Text at all.



r.

 

[Robin]

With all due respect, Bruce...I don't think there's a danger at all. The big reason why is that the literature style/genre of Genesis is not like the NT Gospels/Epistles. The catagories are completely different. If anything, it is coherent with the whole of Redemptive history and makes a beautiful "bookend" with Revelation.

As I said....perhaps another thread.



r.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin
With all due respect, Bruce...I don't think there's a danger at all. The big reason why is that the literature style/genre of Genesis is not like the NT Gospels/Epistles. The catagories are completely different. If anything, it is coherent with the whole of Redemptive history and makes a beautiful "bookend" with Revelation.

As I said....perhaps another thread.



r.

Do you mean the first two chapters of Genesis are not read in the same way, or do you mean the whole book of Genesis ought to be read as non-historical. Even John Gerstner admitted that Genesis purports to be history.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Robin
With all due respect, Bruce...I don't think there's a danger at all. The big reason why is that the literature style/genre of Genesis is not like the NT Gospels/Epistles. The catagories are completely different. If anything, it is coherent with the whole of Redemptive history and makes a beautiful "bookend" with Revelation.

As I said....perhaps another thread.



r.

Do you mean the first two chapters of Genesis are not read in the same way, or do you mean the whole book of Genesis ought to be read as non-historical. Even John Gerstner admitted that Genesis purports to be history.

Will somebody please hit me in the head with a baseball bat, OK?

Of course, Genesis is history.

Here is a link explaining (and it is a bit of work to get it) the question of FI to see if it comport to the 3 Forms and (of course) the Bible:
http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/articles/lengthdays_genesis.htm

I hope this gives some clarity out there. A helpful hint, when studying this, remember the entire Bible has eschatalogical language throughout it. That is key. Ultimately, one's eschat sensibilities will color theological understanding.

(Larry's got IT! There's no contradiction in Genesis. The problem is our tiny-pea-brains...)

:bigsmile:

r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]

 

[JohnV]

My views on this are a bit sharper on the generality of the issue.

Originally posted by cornelius vantil
it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific
explanation on how the world came into being

There is a difference between a scientific statement and a historical accounting. The Bible does not have to be a science textbook to be taken as a literal historic account. News programs are not scientific explanations either. But the normal reading of the Bible is to be preferred in any cases where the intent may be in question.

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I guess I can infer that you are Kline adherent? I think the Framework hypothesis is awful on a number of linguistic fronts and comes dangerously close to denying the Biblical account, in my opinion.

The literary problem I see is that we are to prefer the ordinary meaning of the words of the text. Maybe there is a more literary or metaphorical meaning, but Scripture did not make that clear to us. I would question giving it a literary or metaphorical meaning, since there is no specific warrant for it. So even if the literary approach of the Framework Hypothesis were faultless, it still is no more than a theory.

Originally posted by Robin
Maybe it's another thread??? But I'd have to counter the assertion...Horton, Riddlebarger, and quite a few more hold to Framework....I don't know what folks think it is, but I don't see it marginalizing the Text at all.

What is marginalized is that the normal six-day interpretation is in the Confessions of the Reformed churches. It is mentioned in the Decalogue, and is therefore warranted in the Confessions. To put another view, which does not have that same Biblical warrant, beside it as if equal to it, is to put the six-day view out of the Confessions. The conclusion will be to not have any statement of the creation days in the Confessions at all. God makes the correlation between the six days of creation and the six work days: to overthrow that is to remove it from the Confessions; it does not warrant putting something else along side it.

So my own personal view is that it doesn't really matter what the arguments for the FH are, it's just theoretical. It's a topic for discussion, for interest, but not one for aquiring followers. The same goes for the Analogical Day theory and the Theistic Evolution theory. So I remain unmoved unless they can show me that God makes of it a Framework interpretation in Scripture just as He makes of it a six-day interpretation of it in Scripture.

But, that's just my

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Kevin,
I think you are mistaken (as I was) on Mr Hernandez' epsoused position. The only clear advocate for "framework" (so far) is Robin.

Guess I was. Cheerfully withdrawn!